Richard Neely, individually; NEELY & CALLAGHAN, a West Virginia Partnership v. Mark Zimmer, individually

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2150
RICHARD NEELY, individually; NEELY & CALLAGHAN, a West
Virginia Partnership,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
MARK ZIMMER, individually and as Trustee of the Zimmer
Survivor Trust; and as Executor of the Estate of Norma
Zimmer; RONALD ZIMMER, individually; THE ZIMMER SURVIVOR
TRUST, a California Trust,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin,
District Judge. (2:11-cv-00444)
Submitted: September 5, 2013 Decided: October 31, 2013
Before SHEDD and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard F. Neely, NEELY & CALLAGHAN, Charleston, West Virginia,
for Appellants. Robert E. Adel, GREENBERG TRAURIG, Irvine,
California; Grant P. H. Shuman, SPILMAN, THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In this case involving an attorney-fee dispute, Richard
Neely and Neely and Callaghan, a West Virginia partnership,
appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in
favor of Mark Zimmer, individually, as trustee of the Zimmer
Survivor Trust, and as executor of the estate of Norma Zimmer;
Ronald Zimmer, individually; and the Zimmer Survivor Trust, a
California trust. Richard Neely and the partnership of Neely
and Callaghan also appeal from the district court’s denial of
their motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)
to alter or amend the judgment.
Having carefully reviewed the briefs, the record, and the
relevant law, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.
Neely v. Zimmer, No. 2:11-cv-00444, (S.D.W.Va. Sept. 10, 2012)
(denial of Rule 59(e) motion); Neely v. Zimmer, No. 2:11-cv-
00444, 2012 WL 3198557 (S.D.W.Va. August 2, 2012) (grant of
summary judgment).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --